SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF UNILATERAL DAMAGE FOR RC FRAMES

By Julio Fl6rez-L6pez 1

ABSTRACT: This paper describes an approach, based on the concepts of continuum damage mechanics and
standard inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) frames, to the modeling of the hysteretic behavior of
RC frames. A frame member is considered as the assemblage of an elastic beam-column and two inelastic
hinges, as in the conventional lumped plasticity models. Three sets of internal variables, which measure plastic
rotations and the state of damage of the member, are introduced. An expression for the flexibility matrices
and the complementary strain energy of a member are proposed as a function of these internal variables. The
resulting model can be classified as "unilateral," i.e., it is assumed that damage due to positive actions has
no influence in the behavior under negative action due to the closure of cracks when moments change sign.
The accuracy of the model is verified by simulating various experiments for which data were available in the
literature. The model is very simple in nature and as a result is not comprehensive; however, the approach
presented is amenable of further generalizations.

INTRODUCTION
It is the purpose of this paper to describe how the methods
and notions of continuum damage and fracture mechanics
[see, for instance, Lemaitre and Chaboche (1988)] can be
used to model the hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete
(RC) frame members. As a result, a simplified model of uni-
lateral damage is proposed. This model is different from the
conventional continuum-damage models because it is specif-
N), respectively, where <Pi and <Pj indicate rotations of the
member at the ends i and j; 8 = elongation of the cord [see
Fig. 1(a)]; M i and M j = moments at the ends of the member;
and N = axial force as indicated in Fig. l(b).
A constitutive model for a frame member is defined as the
set of equations that relates the generalized stresses with the
history of generalized deformations. If the member is elastic,
the constitutive model can be expressed as follows:

{aWl {aw*}
ically adapted to frame analysis. The model is based on pre-
vious studies (Florez-Lopez 1993; Cipollina et al. 1995). In M = - = su~ or ~ = -- = FuM (1)
aell aM
these papers, a general framework for the analysis of frames,
a particular model for RC members under monotonic loading, where Wand W* = strain energy and complementary strain
and its numerical implementation in standard finite-element energy, respectively. The terms S" and F" = elastic stiffness
programs were described. and flexibility matrices of the member.
There are, of course, many models of hysteretic behavior The constitutive model and the conventional compatibility
of RC members based on different approaches [see, for in- and equilibrium equations define completely the problem to
stance, Takeda et al. (1970), Filippou et al. (1986), Roufaiel be solved.
and Meyer (1987), Wang and Shah (1987), and Kunnath et Inelastic (plastic-damage) behavior can be modeled con-
al. (1990)], and some of them characterize effects that are sidering the "lumped dissipation model" of the member shown
not taken into account in this paper. However it is hoped that in Fig. 2. The member is represented as the assemblage of
the use of damage-mechanics concepts could be considered an elastic beam-column and two inelastic hinges. Energy dis-
as a valuable alternative approach to the modeling of the sipation is assumed to concentrate only in the hinges while
behavior of RC frames under seismic actions. the beam-column remains elastic. This representation is sim-
This paper is organized as follows. First, the complemen- ilar to that used in the construction of plasticity theories for
tary strain energy of a unilateral damaged member is ob- frames [see, for instance, Maier et al. (1973) and Cohn and
tained. Then, a model of RC frames under monotonic loading Franchi (1979)]. Member deformations can now be expressed
is briefly described. Finally, this model is extended to hys- as the sum of the beam-column deformations ~" plus hinge
teretic behavior, and the accuracy of the model is verified by deformations ~"
simulating various experiments for which data were available
in the literature. ell = eIll> + ell" = FuM + ell" (2)

where the matrix F" is the same as in (1). We assume that

UNILATERAL DAMAGE IN MEMBER OF PLANAR
hinge deformations result from plastic deformations ~I', as
FRAME
defined in the conventional theory of plastic frames, and an
Generalized Stresses and Deformations in Lumped additional term due to damage ~d
Dissipation Model
(3)
The structure consists of a number of deformable structural
members linked together by rigid body joints. External loads
are applied only at the joints. Let us consider a member of
the structure. Generalized deformations and stresses of the
~====M==j i)
member are denoted by ~, = (<Pi' <Pj , 8) and M' = (M i , Mj , ~M; N
-+
+ - - - L----+-
'Assoc. Prof., Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Los Andes,
(b)
Merida 5101, Venezuela.
Note. Associate Editor: Steven L. McCabe. Discussion open until FIG. 1. (a) Generalized Deformations; (b) Generalized Stresses
May I, 1996. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on May 16, / I........ ~----...
1994. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. t e1atle bnm-e:ohllllD.
...
121, No. 12, December, 1995. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/95/0012-1765-
1772/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 8433. FIG. 2. Lumped Dissipation Model of Member

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995 / 1765

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Based on this representation and the methods of the con-
tinuum-damage mechanics, a generalized stress-deformation
relationship can be obtained following the procedure pro-
posed in Florez-Lopez (1993) that is briefly described in the
next section.
Complementary Strain Energy of Damaged Member
Let us first consider the particular case of a geometrically
linear truss member. Then only axial stress and deformation
has to be taken into account. In such a case, it follows from
(2) and (3)
On the other hand, in the theory of continuum-damage
mechanics (Ladeveze 1983; Mazars 1986), the following state
law for a truss member subjected to axial load is proposed
(assuming that the state of damage is constant in the mem-
ber):
(N) po
o= + -'-' + (N) - po33 + OP
(1-w+) (l-w-)
where (N)+
i.e.
positive part of Nand (N) = negative part,
(N)+ =N if N > 0 and
(N)+ = 0 otherwise (6a)
(N)_ =N if N<O and
(N)_ = 0 otherwise (6b)
w+ and w - are internal variables that characterize the state
of damage (density of microcracks and microvoids) due to,
respectively, traction and compression effects. These param-
eters can take values in the interval [0, 1]. Zero corresponds
to a state of no damage, one to a completely broken volume
element.
The use of two different damage variables allows the de-
scription of "unilateral" behavior. The term "unilateral" is
associated, in conventional damage mechanics, to the as-
sumption that the damage originated by positive actions has
no influence on the behavior in compression (due to the clo-
sure of the microcracks) and vice versa. This hypothesis must
be considered as an idealization of the real behavior and not
as an experimental observation. By comparison of (4) and
(5) we have
w+Fu W-F~3
0" = 33 (N) + . (N)
(1 - w +) + (1 - w -) -
Expression (7) should be adopted for the axial damage
deformation of the inelastic hinges in order to have a lumped
dissipation representation of a truss member with the same
behavior of a member after the continuum-damage mechan-
ics.
In this case, a damage parameter w equal to zero means
an axial hinge with zero flexibility (or infinite stiffness) to
traction or compression, i.e., a rigid-plastic hinge. When w+
(w-) takes the value one, we have a member with infinite
axial flexibility or zero stiffness to positive (negative) actions,
i.e., the hinge behaves as if it were disconnected ofthe elastic
beam-column.
In the presence of flexural effects, the problem becomes
too complex to formulate similar analytical results in the gen-
eral case. Therefore we postulate the existence of two sets of
damage parameters (internal variables), D+ = (dt, dt,
d,n and D- = (d;-, d j- , d;;), taking values in the interval
1766/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995
Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
[0, 1] so that the complementary strain energy of the member
can be given by
1 1
U* = "2 (M)~[C(D+)](M)+ + "2 (M)":C(D )(M) + W* (8)
where the first and second terms of (8) are the complementary
strain energy of the inelastic hinges; and W* = complemen-
tary strain energy of the elastic beam-column introduced in
(1). Matrices C(D+) and C(D-) are the flexibility matrices
of the hinges for, respectively, positive and negative actions.
They are defined, taking (7) into account, as follows:
(4) d;F 11
0 0
(1 - d;)
dj F 22
C(D) 0 0 (9)
(1 - dJ
d"F'J3
0 0
(1 - d,,)
(5) The state law (stress-deformation relationship) is therefore
given by
~e = ~ - ~P = tj~} [F(D+, M)](M)+
+ [F(D-, M)](ML (10)
where F(D, M) = C(D) + FO = flexibility matrices of a
unilateral damaged member.
It can be noticed that in the case of a truss member, (10)
becomes (5) with d" equal to w. If flexural effects are present,
continuum-damage mechanics variable w does not correspond
to any damage parameter of D. However, both variables w
and D are similar in meaning: w can be associated to the
variation of the elasticity modulus E and the loss of stiffness
of a volume element of a continuum (Lemaitre and Chaboche
1988), while the damage variable D measures the loss of stiff-
ness of a frame member.
Damage parameters dt (dn and dt (d j- ) characterize
flexural damage due to positive (negative) actions at hinges
i and j (see a representation of the meaning of the damage
parameters in Fig. 3). If a flexural damage parameter takes
the value of zero (no damage) then we have a rigid-plastic
hinge as that of standard plastic theories. If it takes the value
of one, the hinge is denoted "totally damaged hinge" and has
the same behavior of an internal hinge in an elastic frame.
Flexural damage due to positive actions has no influence
on the behavior of the member under negative actions. This
model is therefore a unilateral one. In RC members, this kind
(7)
of behavior can be justified as a consequence of the closure
of cracks when the loading changes sign. Thus we assume as
a first approximation that flexure cracks in the concrete due
to, for instance, a positive moment, will have no influence in
the behavior of the member after the closure of these cracks
when the moment changes sign. As in the case of continuum
mechanics, this assumption must be considered as an ideal-
ization of the real behavior of a RC member.
The generalized stress-deformations relationship (10) can-
dj-o dPo
(J o
FIG. 3. Representation of State of Damage in RC Member by In-
ternal Damage Variables
http://www.ascelibrary.org
not be considered as a constitutive law, because additional
unknowns (the internal variables) were introduced in this
/; = 1M; - x;1 - R;; X; ( 4~)
- d;
c<l>'"
"
expression, therefore supplementary equations (one for each
internal parameter) must be added to (10) in order to define
the constitutive model. This is the object of later sections of
R; =
1 -
4 (4 _ d;d) M, (1Sa-c)
the paper. where c and My = constants that characterize the member.
In the yield function (15), there is a plastic limit (the term
Thermodynamic Forces and Moments Conjugated to R;) that depends on the damage and a kinematic hardening
Damage term Xi' which is a function of the damage and the plastic
deformation. This model becomes the standard elastoplastic
If we use as thermodynamic potential the complementary model with linear kinematic hardening if damage remains
strain energy U*, we can define the thermodynamic forces constant. In such a case, the slope of the hardening line is
conjugated to damage by proportional to c (assumed positive). On the contrary, the
damage produces a "softening" effect. In other words, an
au' aU' increment of damage, at constant plastic deformation, pro-
adt iJd,- duces a decrease of the plastic limit and the hardening term.
The extent of the nonplastic zone is the result of the com-
-G~'} -au'
_{au'} = -
au' G-
G'
ad petition between the hardening resulting from plastic defor-
iJD+ adt j
mation and the softening that is the consequence of the dam-
au'
-
au' age.
ad,; ad,~ The damage-evolution law is obtained in a similar way with
the help of a pair of "damage" functions (gi and gj)' one for
(11)
each hinge, such that
These forces are therefore equivalent of the energy release dd; = 0 if g; < 0 or dg; <0 (l6a)
rate introduced in fracture and continuum damage mechanics.
Thermodynamic moments G t and G j- have the following dd; oF 0 if g; = 0 and dg; = 0 (lob)
explicit expression: where g; = gi(G;, II>j, d i ). As in the previous case, the damage
function was identified with experimental results and the fol-
Gt = _au* = F'I ( (M,)+ )2 (12a) lowing expression was proposed:
adt 2 1 - d/
In(I - d J ]
g, = G; - [ G,r + q (17)
GI = _ au* = F'22 ( (M j )_ )2 (12b)
1 _ d;
ad j - 2 1 - dj-
where G er and q = constants of the member.
These variables will be used to formulate damage evolution In the damage function (17), there is an initial nondamage
laws in the following sections. zone (for d; equal to zero) of size G cr , and a hardening term
that depends on the damage and is proportional to q.
The member's parameters c, M" G,n and q have no well-
TIME-INDEPENDENT EVOLUTION LAWS FOR defined mechanical interpretation. Instead of estimating these
INTERNAL VARIABLES constants directly, it is preferable to compute them by the
Plastic and damage evolution laws were proposed in pre- numerical resolution of the following nonlinear system of
vious studies (Florez-Lopez 1993; Cipollina et al. 1995) for equations.
In the case of monotonic loading
the particular case of reinforced concrete members of con-
stant cross section, negligible axial plasticity and damage (i.e., M = Mer implies d = 0 (IRa)
SI' = 0 and d,~ = d,-; = 0), and loading without change of
sign. In this section, these laws are briefly described because M = M" implies cf>J' = 0 ( IRb)
the more general model proposed in the next section is based M= M" implies dM = 0 ( IRe)
on them. For additional details see the aforementioned ref-
erences. M = M" implies cf>J' = <l>~; (IRd)
If loading does not change sign, then only one set of where Mer = cracking moment; MI' = plastic moment; M"
damage parameters is needed. In this case, complementary = ultimate moment; and 11>';, = plastic deformation at the
strain energy of the member depends on the unique damage ultimate moment. These parameters have a well-defined me-
variable D chanical meaning and it is assumed that they can be computed
for members of any cross section and reinforcement (for in-
U* = (l/2)M T [C(D)]M + W' (13)

The plastic evolution law is expressed with the help of two

yield or plastic functions (f and jj), one for each hinge, such
that
~40
z
~30
~ 20
50

".. - 1
I
o I
dcf>j = 0 if f; < 0 or df < 0 (14a) i displ /
LL 10
o
o 40
I I I I
80 120
,7
160
dcf>j oF 0 if f = 0 and df = 0 (14b)
~time Displacements (m.m)

- test - model
where f = f(M h II>f, d i ). Plastic functions were identified
with experimental results for members of constant cross sec- FIG. 4. Test on Beam-Column Joint: (a) Experiment; (b) Numer-
tion, and the following expression was proposed: ical Simulation

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I DECEMBER 199511767

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
stance using the methods of the conventional RC theory). that depends on the plastic deformation in the model of the
Fig. 4 shows the experimental results and the numerical sim- third section is split into a kinematic term X and an isotropic
ulation of a test performed on a specimen that represents a term in R. In the particular case of a monotonic loading both
beam-column joint. The numerical simulation was done with models, that of the third section and this model, give the
the model described in this section. The parameters of the same results whatever the value of a (in the monotonic model
model (cracking moment, plastic moment, ultimate moment, a was set equal to one). These parameters can be interpreted
and ultimate plastic deformation) were not calculated but as the percentage of the plastic hardening that corresponds
taken from the experimental results, which explains the ex- to a kinematic hardening. This percentage is assumed to re-
cellent agreement between model and test. main constant.
It is then evident that the parameters of the model Men The third assumption is that damage evolution laws for
MI" M,,, and <pI:, and therefore c, My, Gen and q are functions both sets of damage variables D + and D - are obtained from
of the axial force. Thus, even if in this model axial damage two independent damage functions that have the same general
and plasticity are not taken into account explicitly, the influ- form of the previous model, i.e.
ence of the axial force can be considered in the expression
of the elastic flexibility matrix of the member and must be ddt = 0 if gi' < 0 or dgi' < 0 (23a)
considered during the determination of the parameters of the dd,+ of- 0 if gi' = 0 and dgi' = 0 (23b)
model.
dd i- = 0 if gj- < 0 or dg i <0 (23e)
HYSTERETIC MODELING 0 dgi- = 0 (23d)
dd,- of- 0 if g, -
= and
Internal Variable Evolution Laws
In this section, a new model of the hysteretic behavior of
g,+ = G,+ ( G,~ + q+
In(I - d n) (23e)
1 - d ,+
RC members is proposed. This is based on the complemen-
tary strain energy described in the second section and the g,- = G i
_ (_ _ In( 1 - d j-) )
- G <r + q I _ d,- (23f)
evolution laws presented in the third section. The model is
obtained by the following assumptions.
where G;:" G --::" q+ , and q- are member-dependent param-
The first assumption is that the plastic evolution law is
eters as those introduced in (17).
similar to that of the previous model but the plastic function
The model with unilateral damage proposed in this paper
of hinge i has now two expressions, one for positive actions
is then composed by the state laws [(10) and (11)] and the
and another for negative actions
internal variable evolution laws [(19)-(23)] for hinges i and
dCPj = 0 if f, < 0 or df, < 0 (I9a) j. This model can be easily included in the library of standard
finite-elements programs following the algorithm described
d<P:' of- 0 if f, = 0 and df, = 0 (19b) in Florez-Lopez (1993) and Cipollina et al. (1995).
All constants of the model, except a + and a -, can be
for Ii max(ft; In, where max(ft; In
0= It if computed by the resolution of two nonlinear systems of equa-
It 2: Ii- , and Ii-
otherwise.
tions similar to (18). It can be noticed that the parameters of
The second assumption is that both expressions have the
same general form of the yield function described in the pre- (18) (cracking, plastic and ultimate moment, and ultimate
vious section, but for positive actions the hardening terms plastic deformation for positive and negative actions) could
depend only on D+ and for negative actions depend on D- , be calculated by conventional RC theory. Constants a + and
i.e. a - can be determined by experimental results. This model
produces the hysteretic cycles indicated in Fig. 5, where the
Ii' = M i - Xi' - R/; I, = -Mi + X i- - R i- (20a,b) slopes Sl' SZ, S3, and S4 are as follows:
where Xt and X i- represent kinematic hardening terms; and
Rt and R j- are isotropic hardening terms that have the fol-
lowing expression:
1 - d'
X ,+ = a + ' c + CPl'· X,- (2Ia,b) jl--::br----r------Ihl----t-----i
4 - d,+ " ::Ii X+R

R,' = : _ ~:: [(1 - a+)c+pj + 4Mn (2Ie) 1

1 - d- Rotation
R j- = 4 _ d;-
[(1 - a-)cp, + 4M;] (2Id) (oj

Monotonic loading _
The variable Pi = maximum plastic deformation defined as 52
Pj(t) = maxICP~'(-T)I, for -00 5: T 5: t (22)
51
i.e., the value of Pi at a given time t is the maximum absolute jl------L--I---+-----l
value of the plastic deformation undergone by a hinge i over
the entire plastic deformation history of the member. s4
Parameters c + , M / ' e - , and M >-: are member-dependent
constants similar to those introduced in the plastic evolution
law described in the preceding section. For symmetric sections Rotation
the coefficients indicated by + and those marked by - are (b'
identical: e+ = C-, M,: = M v-' FIG. 5. Hysteretic Cycles of Unilateral Model: (a) Cycle wIthout
The terms a + and eX - are constants that can take values Damage Increment; (b) Cycle with Increment of Internal Variable
between zero and one. This means that the hardening term d+

1768/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 1 - d+ represented. However, the model could be modified by the
Fo substitution of the damage evolution laws presented here with
the low cycle fatigue law proposed in Puglisi and Florez-Lopez
(1994). Yet, in this law additional member's parameters are
(4 - d +)PO + a+c+(l needed.
1 - d~
Numerical Simulations of Experimental Tests
F"
In this section, numerical simulations of some tests re-
(1 - d ~)c ~ a ~ po ported in the literature are presented. Fig. 7(b) shows the
s = -,------:'-,--::::---'-----:--,----:--:-
4 (4 - d~)PO + a~c(l - d~)
Cycles =
More sophisticated evolution laws could be proposed. For
instance, in this model it is assumed that the percentage of
, S 3

the plastic hardening that corresponds to a kinematic hard- ::to

ening is constant. This is obviously an extreme simplification;
however, a more complicated law would require the use of .... 0
s..
more member's parameters that would be difficult to deter- 1:1 ....
vel
mine in the practice for a cross section of any shape and ar:
v
reinforcement. Actually, even the determination of the two ~,t.
constants a could present some difficulties, but because they
have a clear mechanical meaning, it is expected that an ap-
is
;sg
proximate value of them could be estimated with little ex- l:l

......
-4
perimental evidence. Besides, these parameters allow a better
representation of the amplitude of each hysteretic cycle but
have no influence on the maximum moments or rotations of -7
the cycle (see Fig. 6). u n u u " n
From Figs. 5 or 6, it can be noticed that the "pinching" No. of Cycles
effect that is observed in the tests with high shear in the (a)
absence of axial load [see Popov et al. (1972) and Ma et al.
Drift Ratio AIL (X)
(1976)] is not modeled. This effect is due to the decrease of
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
the stiffness during crack closure in the presence of high shear 80 .......-'--.L-JL.....L.-'--'-'-L-'--'-L-f--L....J-.L......I----'--'--.L......IL.....L.-'--'-'-r
forces. In the model it is assumed that cracks are instanta- 70
neously closed when the moment changes sign. 60
50
It can be shown that a damage parameter d can evolve if
.. 40
and only if the actual value of the thermodynamic moment ]' 30
G is also the maximum value of G at this time of the loading, '0.;. 20

I.e. 'g to
~ O+-------,~,r;.....".e...".'-;IC.,

d(t) > 0 if and only if G(t) = max[G(T)], for -00 ~ T~ t ti -to Pull
t; -20
(24) il -30 Sll'llb
04 -40 _
where d = derivative with respect to time; G(t) = actual -50
value of the thermodynamic moment; and G(T) = value of -60
the same variable at a past time T. This means that damage -70 ,.
is a function of the maximum amplitude of cyclic deformation
-80 ,,-'.7' 3
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 - t O t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
experienced by the member but does not depend on the num- Deflection (in)
ber of cycles. Therefore low cycle fatigue effect cannot be
(b)
FIG. 7. Column Test after Chai et al. (1991): (a) Lateral Loading
60 History; (b) Hysteretic Response
40
C 20
'"
El 0
0
::l': -20
-40
-60
-2 0 2
Rotation '0

....c
60
40
20
-
~
-
I:Il
o

-20
~
'"El0 0
::l': -20 ~ -40

-40
-60
-60
-2 0 2
Rotation

FIG. 6. Influence of Parameter IX in Cycle without Increment of

Displacement/Yield displacement
Damage: (a) Cycle with IX = 0; (b) Cycle with IX = 1 FIG. 8. Numerical Simulation of Test of Fig. 7

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995 /1769

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 12,---------------r----r--,
10
8
6
4
2
o f'o::A"+f+l4,I+i+l+++++i-+++-I-+-I-l-.-~
c -2

1=:
0
-'0
-12 ±-0-~--I---+---+---+'O--'+2..L..l'+-4.-J (a)
Number Of Load Cycle.
200.,,-;LB"'1'_de-----.-----------.
(a) fl:-80.2 UPa
150 a/d-3.5
""1"...0.5 1""1 2 3 4 5 II
:soc
1 00 loadIng hilltary 2

200 50
Cl OI+----~>!lIlI!!WJj
4:
... '00 o -5
~ ...J
I
-Hio
! 0

1
:I
-100
-150

60 90 1 0
(mm)
-200

-300 FIG. 11. Beam Test after Fang et a!. (1994): (a) Lateral Loading
-12 -8 -4 12 History; (b) Hysteretic Response
Ol.placernentty\eld OI,plocement

(b)
100
FIG. 9. Column Test after Lim and McLean (1991): (a) Lateral
Loading History; (b) Hysteretic Response
-
Z
~
50

----
"d
(l$
0
~ 200 ···········t···············································1···.···•
.. v.-r __"" o-l

CI:l 100 _ ; .
.8' : i -50
.:><:
...
I::::
(l)

S -100
o Displacement/Yield displacement
::;s
-200
o experiment FIG. 12. Numerical Simulation of Test of Fig. 11
model
column of reinforced concrete of circular cross section as
-300 "--"'-'--_1L::...l-1-L....L...L_:-i-...l-1-L-L...l-.L...l....L....LJ....J-l..-'-1l.0-'-.J......lI
O 5 reported in Lim and McLean (1991). As in the previous case,
the column was subjected to a constant axial load and then
Displacement/Yield displacement t? the !ateral loading described in Fig. 9(a). A numerical
FIG. 10. Numerical Simulation of Test of Fig. 9 Simulation of the test, with the following parameters- EII U
.= 600/L kips/in.; M~, = M-;, = 0, M,: = M,; = 160 kips/
experimental hysteretic response of a column of reinforced tn.; M,: = M,; = 275 kips/in.; <1>;'" = <1>7>" = O.6/L; and
CI. + = CI. - = 0.55-is presented in Fig. 10.
concrete of circular cross section retrofitted with a steel jacket
[see Chai et al. (1991) for additional details]. The column Finally, Fig. II (b) shows the cyclic behavior of a beam with
was subjected to a constant axial load of 400 kips and to the lower amount of bottom reinforcement and rectangular cross
lateral displacement pattern of increasing magnitude indi- section [see Fang et al. (1994)]. In this test, there is no axial
cated in Fig. 7(a). Fig. 8 shows the numerical simulation of force and only the lateral loading indicated in Fig. II(a). The
~he test with the following parameters: EI/U = 18.5 kips/
numerical simulation was performed with the following pa-
~n.; M~, = M-;, = 2,160 kips/in.; M/ = M p- = 5,940 kips/
rameters: El/U = 4.2 kN/m'm' M+ = O' M- = O' M +
= 138,000kN/m' m; M ,; = 92,000 kN/m'~; <1>';,,, = ().048;
tn.; M,~ = M,; = 9,300 kips/in.; <I>~" = <I>~" = 0.03; and
CI. + = CI. - = 0.70. These values were not calculated but taken
<I> 7>" = 0.042; CI. + = 1; and CI. - = 0.8. Fig. 12 shows the
from the experimental results. In Fig. 8, some representative numerical simulation of the test of Fig. 11.
points of the experimental results (maximum and minimum
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
values and the plastic displacements of each cycle) are indi-
cated with emptied rectangles. A simplified model of damage for RC members under hys-
Fig. 9(b) shows the experimental hysteretic response of a teretic loading has been proposed. This model incorporates
1no I JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I DECEMBER 1995

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
the notions and methods of the continuum damage and frac-
ture mechanics. It allows, at least, the qualitative represen-
tation of the following effects:
1. Unilateral behavior
2. Unsymmetrical cross section with different yield capac-
ities at positive and negative bending
3. A simplified form of interaction of flexure and axial
forces in two forms: the so called p-& effect and the
influence of the axial force on the strength of the cross
section
4. Stiffness and strength degradation due to cracking .of
the concrete
5. Plastic deformations due to the yield of the reinforce-
ment
havior of three R.C. flexural members with high shear." Earthquake
Engrg. Res. Or. Rep. No. EERC 72-5, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Puglisi, M., and Florez-Lopez, J. (1994). "Lumped damage models for
oligocyclic fatigue in RC frames." Proc., Localized Damage /II, Com-
putational Mechanics Publishers, Southhampton, Mass.
Roufaiel, M. S. L., and Meyer, C. (1987). "Analytical modeling of
hysteretic behavior of RIC frames." 1. Struct. Diy.. ASCE, 113(3),
429-443.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., and Nielsen, N. N. (1970). "Reinforced
concrete response to simulated earthquakes." 1. Strucl. Diy., ASCE,
96,2557-2573.
Wang, M.-L., and Shan, S. P. (1987). "Reinforced concrete hysteresis
model based on the damage concept." Earthquake Engrg. and Strucl.
Dynamics, 15, 993-1003.

The model is very simple in nature and as a result it is not APPENDIX II. NOTATION
comprehensive. In particular, it does not take into account
the pinching effect, low cycle fatigue effects, or finite exten- The following symbols are used in this paper:
sions of plastic zones. However, the approach presented is
amenable of further generalizations. ceD), ceD'), ceD -) flexibility matrices of set of in-
elastic hinges;
The model can be easily included in the library of standard
c, M\., c+, c-, M~:, M\,-, constants in yield functions;
finite-elements programs. - "0.+ , a-
D+, D matrices of damage variables of
member;
ACKNOWLEDGMENT d(, d i- flexural damage parameters of
hinge i;
A grant from the CDCHT of the Universidad de Los Andes, Vene-
zuela, is gratefully acknowledged. d;, d; flexural damage parameters of
hinge j;
d,t, d/~ axial damage parameters of
member;
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES E modulus of elasticity;
Chai, Y. H., Nigel Priestley, M. J., and Seible, F. (1991). "Seismic Fo flexibility matrix of elastic beam-
retrofit of circular bridge columns for enhanced flexural performance." column;
ACI Strucl. J., 88(5). F(D+, M), F(D , M) flexibility matrices of member;
Cipollina, A., Lopednojosa, A., and Florez-Lopez, J. (1995). "A sim- j;, It, f, yield functions of hinge i;
plified damage mechanics approach to nonlinear analysis of frames." G+, G- thermodynamic forces conju-
Compo & Struct., 54(6). gated to damage;
Cohn, Z. M., and Franchi, A. (1979). "STRUPL: A computer system constants in the damage func-
for structural plasticity." 1. Struct. Diy., ASCE, 105(4), 789-804. tions;
Fang, I.-K., Wang, c.-S., and Hong, K.-L. (1994). "Cyclic behavior of gi, g(, gi- damage functions of hinge i;
high-strength concrete short beams with lower amount of flexural re- I moment of inertia;
inforcement." A CI Struct. 1., 91 (I). L undeformed length of member;
Filippou, F. c., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1986). "Analytical M generalized stresses of member;
studies of hysteretic behavior of RIC joints. 1. Strucl. Diy., ASCE, M,_, cracking moment;
112, 1605-1622. Mi,MJ end moments;
Florez-Lopez, J. (1993). "Calcul simplifie de portiques endommagea- Mp plastic moment;
bles." Reyue europeenne des elements finis [Eur. 1. Finite Elements I, ultimate moment;
2(1),47-74 (in French). M"
N axial force;
Kunnath, S. K., Reinhorn, A. M., and Park, Y. J. (1990). "Analytical
R i , R(, R i isotropic hardening terms in yield
modeling of inelastic seismic response of RIC structures." 1. Struct.
functions of hinge i;
Diy., ASCE, 116(4),996-1017. So
Ladeveze, P. (1983). "On a anisotropic damage theory." Proc., CNRS stiffness matrix of elastic beam-
11lI. Colloquium of Failure Criteria of Slruct. Media, Villars de Lans,
column;
France. U* complementary strain energy of
Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J.-L. (1988). Mechanics of solid materials. member;
Dunod, Paris, France. W strain energy of elastic beam-col-
Lim, K. Y., and McLean, D. I. (1991). "Scale model studies of moment- umn;
reducing hinge in bridge columns." ACI Struct. 1., 88(4). W* complementary strain energy of
Ma, S. M., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1967). "Experimental and elastic beam-column;
analytical studies on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete rec- Xi' X(, X i- kinematic hardening terms in
tangular and T-beams." Earthquake Engrg. Res. Or. Rep. No. EERC yield functions of hinge i;
76-2, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. total elongation of chord;
Maier, G .. De Donato, L., and Corradi, L. (1973). "Inelastic analysis elongation of chord due to dam-
of reinforced concrete frames by quadratic programming." Symp. on age;
Inelasticity and Nonlinearities in Slruct. Concrete, Univ. of Waterloo, plastic elongation of chord;
Canada. generalized deformations of
Mazars, J. (1986). "A model of unilateral elastic damageable material member;
and its application to concrete." Proc.. Fracture Toughness and Frac- generalized deformations of
ture Energy of Concrete, F. H. Wittmann, ed. Elsevier, New York, elastic beam-column;
N.Y., 61-71. generalized deformations due to
Popov, E. P., Bertero, V. V., and Krawinkler, H. (1972). "Cyclic be- damage;

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995/1771

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org
 generalized deformations of set <1>"i' <1>"j plastic relative end rotations;
of inelastic hinges; <1>" plastic rotation at ultimate mo-
total relative end rotations; " ment; and
generalized plastic deformations damage variables of conven-
of member; tional damage mechanics.

1n2/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 1995

Downloaded 14 Jun 2010 to 169.229.156.153. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
http://www.ascelibrary.org